Category talk:Members of the House of Representatives
We could divide this category and the US Senators up by State. Obviously, not every state is heavily represented, and some aren't ever going to grow (like Dakota). But using the 3 or more rule we could do Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, Maine, Pennsylvania, Texas, Tennessee, Ohio, and California right now (and most of those would be 5 or more), with a strong possibility of growth. TR 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC) :Maybe. I kind of like it as is. Besides, I'm not sure I see much point to doing so; the US Congress is the US Congress. Should we have a category for "Presidents from Virginia" while we're at it? Turtle Fan 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC) ::Well, we did discuss noting characters by state. ::It's not urgent. If I knew we had at least one Congressman (or Senator) from each state, I'd probably push it more. TR 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :::I think it would be counter-productive in that you would need to know what state an individual represented if you wanted to find them in the category. I suppose it would be useful, though, if you wanted to know all the congressmen from a particular state in HT's works. ML4E 02:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Lists by state for each story would provide the benefit without the negative. Turtle Fan 03:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Would it be useful to split this by US and CS Representatives as TR has done with the Senate? Probably a lot of duplicates with the CS sub-cat. ML4E 05:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC) :It might be. It seems like I did an informal count once and came up with a very small number of CS Congressmen. But, GoTS is still on the table. TR 05:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC) ::Unlike the Senate, though, the HoR is not a universal concept. So the category as is lacks much ambiguity. Turtle Fan 15:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC) :::This. Obviously, other lower houses are know as the House of Representatives in other countries. But HT doesn't seem much inclined to get into their inner workings. :::If HT starts exploring HoRs (a tall order, as this might require HT to put aside his anti-Australian bias), then lets revisit the issue. TR 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Maybe he'll write a story about how the Australian Parliament is full of craven, cowardly, cruel, corrupt, and (with regret, here the alliteration ends) morally bankrupt extraction-politicians who seek to enrich themselves and are prepared to break any promise and betray any ally, even jeopardize the national interest itself, to do so. Turtle Fan 20:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC) :::::I see what you are saying and agree in part. We could still seperate out CS House of Reps and have it as a seperate cat in "Politicians" if you think that is worth while. Alternatively, that and US Reps plus British MPs could be sub-cats of "Legislative Assemblies". ML4E 22:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::I've been thinking "Legislators" or some variation thereof might be a good encompassing catgory. TR 02:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::Legislators wouldn't be a bad idea per se, but it would be a move from a more specific category to a less specific one--moving in the opposite direction from that of the bulk of our recent category reorganization. Turtle Fan 05:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::To clarify, Legislators would be a sub-category Politicians. Senators, House Members and MPs would be subcategories of the Legislators category. TR 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Ah, of course. Yes, that would be useful. Turtle Fan 23:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::::And there are some assemblymen and town councilmen who could arguably fit into the Legislators category or are now merely politicians. TR 23:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)